legal_enterprise_customer_onboarding_loop

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful execution context about routing through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope. However, it does not disclose what side effects may occur, which records or systems may be changed, or why the action is flagged destructive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short, front-loaded with the action name, and cleanly lists the two parameters. There is no verbose filler or repeated schema content, though the content is thin enough that conciseness comes partly from under-specification.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a generic dispatcher-style action with two unconstrained parameters and destructive hints, the description is not complete enough. It does not explain what an enterprise customer onboarding loop is, what a good message objective looks like, what structured inputs are supported, or what outcomes the agent should expect. The output schema reduces the need to document return values, but the core semantics and selection context are missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds some meaning by calling message a 'Free-text objective' and inputs an 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs.' This is better than the bare schema but still lacks format guidance, example structures, or how the two parameters interact.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Run the legal domain agent action enterprise_customer_onboarding_loop.' It also adds routing and scope context. However, it never says what the onboarding loop actually accomplishes, relying on the tool name for meaning and giving no differentiation from the many other legal_*_loop siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as legal_matter_intake, legal_vendor_onboarding_legal_loop, or other legal loops. The description only says it runs a domain agent action; there is no when/when-not, prerequisite, or exclusion information.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.